29
83 S.Ct. 594
9 L.Ed.2d 561
I.
2
The indictment charged violations of both the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and
the Robinson-Patman Act in Kansas City and in six local markets in the
adjacent area.1 The Robinson-Patman counts charged National Dairy and Wise
with selling milk in those markets 'at unreasonably low prices for the purpose
of destroying competition.' Further specifying the acts complained of, the
indictment charged National Dairy with having 'utilized the advantages it
possesses by reason of the fact that it operates in a great many different
geographical localities in order to finance and subsidize a price war against the
small dairies selling milk in competition with it * * * by intentionally selling
milk (directly or to a distributor) at prices below National's cost.' In five of the
markets National Dairy's pricing practice was alleged to have resulted in 'severe
financial losses to small dairies,' and in two others the effect was claimed to
have been to 'eliminate competition' and 'drive small dairies from' the market.
National Dairy and Wise move to dismiss all of the Robinson-Patman counts
on the grounds that the statutory provision, 'unreasonably low prices,' is so
vague and indefinite as to violate the due process requirement of the Fifth
Amendment and an indictment based on this provision is violative of the Sixth
Amendment in that it does not adequately apprise them of the charges. The
District Court, after rendering an oral opinion holding that 3 of the RobinsonPatman Act is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite, granted the motion and
ordered dismissal of the 3 counts. The case came here on direct appeal from
the order of dismissal.
II.
5
National Dairy and Wise urge that 3 is to be tested solely 'on its face' rather
than as applied to the conduct charged in the indictment, i.e., sales below cost
for the purpose of destroying competition. The Government on the other hand,
places greater emphasis on the latter, contending that whether or not there is
doubt as to the validity of the statute in all of its possible applications, s 3 is
plainly constitutional in its application to the conduct alleged in the indictment.
It is true that a statute attacked as vague must initially be examined 'on its face,'
but it does not follow that a readily discernible dividing line can always be
drawn, with statutes falling neatly into one of the two categories of 'valid' or
'invalid' solely on the basis of such an examination.
The strong presumptive validity that attaches to an Act of Congress has led this
Court to hold many times that statutes are not automatically invalidated as
vague simply because difficulty is found in determining whether certain
marginal offenses fall within their language. E.g., Jordan v. De George, 341
U.S. 223, 231, 71 S.Ct. 703, 707, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951), and United States v.
Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7, 67 S.Ct. 1538, 1541, 91 L.Ed. 1877 (1947). Indeed, we
have consistently sought an interpretation which supports the constitutionality
of legislation. E.g., United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 47, 73 S.Ct. 543,
546, 97 L.Ed. 770 (1953); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62, 52 S.Ct. 285,
296, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932); see Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct.
1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945).
10
Void for vagueness simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach
where one could not reasonably understand that his contemplated conduct is
proscribed. United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.C. 808, 811, 98
L.Ed. 989 (1954). In determining the sufficiency of the notice a statute must of
necessity be examined in the light of the conduct with which a defendant is
charged. Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282, 65 S.Ct. 666, 89 L.Ed. 944
(1945). In view of these principles we must conclude that if 3 of the
Robinson-Patman Act gave National Dairy and Wise sufficient warning that
selling below cost for the purpose of destroying competition is unlawful, the
statute is constitutional as applied to them.2 This is not to say that a beadsight
indictment can correct a blunderbuss statute, for the latter itself must be
sufficiently focused to forewarn of both its reach and coverage. We therefore
12
This Court, in Moore v. Mead's Fine Bread Co., 348 U.S. 115, 75 S.Ct. 148, 99
L.Ed. 145 (1954), a case based in part on 3, recognized the applicability of
the Robinson-Patman Act to conduct quite similar to that with which National
Dairy and Wise are charged here. The Court said, 'Congress by the Clayton Act
and Robinson-Patman Act barred the use of interstate business to destroy local
business' through programs in which 'profits made in interstate activities would
underwrite the losses of local price-cutting campaigns.' Id. at 120, 119, 75 S.Ct.
at 151, 150.
13
14
Whether 'below cost' refers to 'direct' or 'fully distributed' cost or some other
level of cost computation cannot be decided in the abstract. There is nothing in
the record on this point, and it may well be that the issue will be rendered
academic by a showing that National Dairy sold below any of these cost levels.
Therefore, we do not reach this issue here. As we said in Automatic Canteen
Co. of American v. Federal Trade Comm., 346 U.S. 61, 65, 73 S.Ct. 1017,
1020, 97 L.Ed. 1454 (1953): 'Since precision of expression is not an
outstanding characteristic of the Robinson-Patman Act, exact formulation of
the issue before us is necessary to avoid inadvertent pronouncement on
statutory language in one context when the same language may require separate
consideration in other settings.'
15
16
United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed.
516 (1921), on which much reliance is placed, is inapposite here. In Cohen the
Act proscribed 'any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge.' The charge in the
indictment was in the exact language of the statute, and, in specifying the
conduct covered by the charge, the indictment did nothing more than state the
price the defendant was alleged to have collected. Hence, the Court held that a
'specific or definite' act was neither proscribed by the Act nor alleged in the
indictment. Id. at 89, 41 S.Ct. at 300. Moreover, the standard held too vague in
Cohen was without a meaningful referent in business practice or usage. '(T)here
was no accepted and fairly stable commercial standard which could be regarded
as impliedly taken up and adopted by the statute * * *.' Small Co. v. American
Sugar Rfg. Co., 267 U.S. 233, 240241, 45 S.Ct. 295, 297, 69 L.Ed. 589
(1925). In view of the business practices against which 3 was unmistakably
directed and the specificity of the violations charged in the indictment here,
both absent in Cohen, the proffered analogy to that case must be rejected.
17
IV.
18
This opinion is not to be construed, however, as holding that every sale below
cost constitutes a violation of 3. Such sales are not condemned when made in
furtherance of a legitimate commercial objective, such as the liquidation of
excess, obsolete or perishable merchandise, or the need to meet a lawful,
equally low price of a competitor. 80 Cong.Rec. 6332, 6334; see Ben Hur Coal
Co. v. Wells, 242 F.2d 481 (C.A.10th Cir., 1957). Sales below cost in these
instances would neither be 'unreasonably low' nor made with predatory intent.
But sales made below cost without legitimate commercial objective and with
specific intent to destroy competition would clearly fall within the prohibitions
of 3.
19
Since the indictment charges the latter conduct and, as noted, supra, n. 2, we
are bound by the well-pleaded allegations of the indictment, we must conclude
that National Dairy and Wise were adequately forewarned of the illegal conduct
charged against them and remand the case for trial. Our holding, of course,
does not foreclose proof on the merits as to the reasonableness of the alleged
pricing conduct or, for that matter, the absence of the predatory intent necessary
to conviction.
20
21
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice
GOLDBERG join, dissenting.
22
The statute here involved makes it a crime to sell 'goods at unreasonably low
prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.'
15 U.S.C. 13a. In United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 41
S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921), this Court held unconstitutional and void for
vagueness a statute which made it a crime 'for any person willfully * * * to
make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge' in dealing in or with any
necessaries. The rule established by that case has been often followed,1 is in my
judgment sound, and should control this case. Accordingly, I would affirm the
District Court's judgment holding the statute invalid. The Court here attempts
by interpretation to substitute unambiguous standards for the vague standard of
'unreasonably low prices' used by Congress in the statute. It seems to me that if
this criminal statute is to be so drastically reconstructed it should be done by
Congress, not by us. Moreover, I agree with the Attorney General's National
Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws, which concluded:
23
E.g., Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445, 47 S.Ct. 681, 71 L.Ed. 1146
(1927); Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888
(1939); cf. United States v. Cardiff, 344 U.S. 174, 73 S.Ct. 189, 97 L.Ed. 200
(1952)9